Mr HUNT (Flinders) (18:18): This is the debate you have when you do not have an election mandate. This is a debate about proper representation, because this government went to the election on a fundamental act of dishonesty. It pledged, as the Prime Minister said with her most sacred words, 'There will be no carbon tax under the government I lead.' It was a moment of fundamental deception of the Australian people. Against that background, every member of this government knows that they went to the election on a pledge not to introduce a carbon tax. It was not a minor or incidental or passing discussion in the course of the last week. It was the focus of the fundamental debate at the core of the push for a mandate from the Australian people. The Prime Minister of Australia said there would be no carbon tax under the government she leads. The Prime Minister of Australia, 24 hours before the election, said that she ruled out a carbon tax, and the reason she did that was she knew the Australian people would not give her a mandate if she did other than reject a carbon tax prior to the election; otherwise, why did she need to make that statement? She made that statement knowing that her intention, her goal and her desire was to introduce a carbon tax. It was an act of deception, it was an act which was holding the Australian people in contempt and it was utterly unnecessary.

Against that background, there are two great issues at stake in this debate. One is about representation of the people through the inquiry process. One is about representation of the Australian public. This inquiry process matters because it is about giving the people their chance to have a say. That is why we are seeking, with the consent of the Independents, to have the inquiry process extended. Therefore, I move: